Even alpha male bad boys are disappointed by the Sexual Revolution

Thanks to radical feminism’s dominance in the culture, young unmarried women are very disinterested in marriage. Many of them see marriage as boring, and children as restrictive of their freedom. Instead, young women want to make sure to use their young and fertile years to pack in as much fun and thrills as they can. So what sort of men do they choose to pursue for that?

Women are often said to be the less shallow sex when it comes to what they find attractive.

But a study of an online gallery of ‘hot male commuters’ has found that the fairer sex are just as superficial as men – as they find muscles and money the sexiest male attributes.

The study based its findings on a website called Tube Crush, where women and gay men secretly take pictures of the capital’s attractive men on the London Underground.

[…]While the authors acknowledge that gay men also use the site, they say that female responses to the ‘hot commuters’ suggest females have not moved on in what they find attractive beyond ‘money and strength’ – despite their advancement in society.

Signs that the man is wealthy – such as a flashy watch or an expensive suit – were considered highly attractive by site users, as were powerful arm and chest muscles.

But the classic image of the ‘new man’ – a man holding a baby – or skinnier or nerdier types of man were far less represented.

Now, in my experience, men who are getting a lot of attention because of their looks are probably the least likely to be faithful, much less commit. If the man is putting in a lot of effort into his appearance (as opposed to his education, his career, his spiritual life, etc.), he’s probably doing it in order to get sexual access to a lot of women. He’s not looking to commit, in short. He’s looking to play the field. But it turns out that even the men who are successful at this are not happy with their success.

It sounds like every young man’s idea of heaven: endless sex with a constant stream of gorgeous, up-for-it women who don’t even expect a pizza date before, or a conversation afterwards – and all via a tap on your smartphone.

Yet incredibly, a new generation of handsome, successful – and sexually prolific – Tinder-weary lads are claiming sex with hundreds of one-night stands is leaving them burned out, bored – and lonely.

Despite bedding a bevvie of beauties, they claim they’re desperate for lasting romance – and broody for children with a new wave of sexually-liberated young women who just don’t want to commit.

I got to know a group of these seemingly lucky men after I co-wrote the UK’s biggest ever academic study into more than 2,000 British men, released this week.

Called the Harry’s Masculinity Report, the survey was conducted by University College London and Harry’s, a new men’s grooming company that’s just launched in the UK.

Harry’s wanted to shatter the myths around masculinity, and discover what truly made modern men tick in 2017.

Here are some details:

One of these was Simone Ippolito, 25, from Bournemouth, a self-confessed Tinder “player” for two years.

The salesman and part-time model claimed: “When I first got Tinder two years ago, it was heaven. In three months I got 300 matches. They were coming so fast I couldn’t keep up.

“People on Tinder are only there for sex. I’ve been on 200 dates, and I get a result 99 per cent of the time.

“Getting sex is too easy. You get bored of it. Tinder takes all the pleasure out of flirting. It’s not fun anymore. Tinder is literally two glasses of wine then back home for sex. There is no emotion.

“It is boring, empty and lonely. You can’t have a nice conversation after mechanical sex. It’s just sex and go. Now I just want to stop it and settle down”.

Talking to other single men, it rapidly became clear that while dating apps like Tinder means it’s never been easier to get sex, it’s never been harder to fall in love.

This sentiment was echoed by Gary Barnett, 34, social media manager from Brighton, who’s been single for three months.

“For the first time ever in human history, sex is on tap,” he says.

“Nine times out of ten you don’t even have to go out on a date. If a girl likes your photos, they just come round.

“If you’re half attractive you’re bombarded with offers. You can go on Tinder dates every single night of the week.

“The social interaction is totally lacking. You can have sex and never talk again.

“They always ask the same three questions. ‘Hi how are you?’ ‘how’s your week been?’ or ‘I love your beard/tattoos’. That’s literally code for ‘do you want to f***?’

“That was really good for the first year. I filled my boots. After 50 Tinder dates, including 20 in the last two months with no sign of any ‘keepers,’ I’m over it. You get to the point where you can’t be bothered to do it anymore”.

Ah yes, the beard and tattoos. These are apparently very important for attracting women today. But it doesn’t work to attract a serious marriage-minded women to settle down with. Men are designed to want relationships with women. But not every woman is capable of having a relationship with a man. Especially after so many women have been taught by feminism not to prefer commitment-minded men who can perform the traditional male roles: protecting, providing and leading on moral and spiritual issues. Beards, muscles, shiny watches and tattoos might attract women, but it doesn’t make those women marriage-ready. In fact, the sort of women who are impressed with appearances are probably looking for fun. They are definitely NOT going to be comfortable with relationship obligations to a husband or children. To build a capacity for self-sacrificial commitment, you don’t practice having fun and thrills. You practice self-sacrificial commitment. You work on developing a worldview that makes self-sacrificial commitment rational, even when it goes against your self-interest. A worldview like Christianity, for example.

We already knew that women are unhappy with the dating scene today. And now we know that even the men who are “succeeding” are unhappy with it too, in the long term. The Sexual Revolution has messed up love and commitment for everyone.

Not on topic, and you’ve probably done it, but do you think apologetics alone (a reasoned defense of the Christian faith) can save people? Not lead them to Christ, I think that is undeniable. But is there a place of pure faith, a step beyond any evidence that is required? A post on this would probably be well-received.

I think that Christians should be able to make a case and answer objections, but whether a person becomes a Christian or not is a matter of God’s revealing himself, and the person’s own response to God’s revelation of himself. After all, an apologetics conversation is a very small part of their lives. It’s a good idea to pray to ask God to be active in their lives drawing them to Himself with evidence and other appropriate events, relationships, etc.

Sex is meant for procreation and uniting with your spouse…. the pleasure is just the icing. When you make sex only about pleasure…these are the results you get. On top of that many people just think sex is physical when there is the emotional and spiritual aspects to it as well (you truly become ‘one flesh’).

What love is truly about involves responsibility…hence things like marriage and creating a family together. The joys and sufferings you encounter together through a lifetime of matrimony. There’s a lot more to love than just sex.

Some thoughts/hypotheses. Rollo Tomassi talks about women not being capable of loving a man the way a man wants (for the sake of loved as opposed to conditionally-opportunistically, see “Men in Love” and others at The Rational Male. These men that bed many women are still vulnerable to this. You can see this in some rock music lyrics (reflecting the artists experiences).

I don’t know if this matters but the Bible uses a different word for how men are to love their wives vs how women are to love their husbands. Agape vs. philia? Does this indicate a limit to a woman’s ability to love? If so, these men would be no less vulnerable to this. You perform again and again and never feel loved.

There is a claim in the secular manosphere that the current condition of these men having “soft harems” e.g. women coming and going into other men’s harems is psychologically/spiritually damaging to men. As a guess, just because there’s another one waiting doesn’t mean he doesn’t end up feeling cuckholded in some sense.

Did you see my post about Roosh V and how he describes appealing to modern women for sex as acting like a clown for them? Being “a good little clown” to get sex? But you can’t get marriage from them when they’re young, because they want to have fun.

I think I can explain the problem very simply. If I adjusted my appearance and manner in order to appeal to modern women (carefully groomed beard, tall, more muscles, tattoos, piercings, expensive haircut, expensive stylish clothes, expensive car, frequent travel, progressive political views, agnostic, amoral (no moral judgements), faked concern for whales / global warming, fake vegan, etc.) then I could easily get sex from them.

HOWEVER, I would not be able to make one of these women read a book about education options for children, i.e. homeschooling vs private schools vs public schools. Or any book with practical guidelines about any aspect of marriage. Think about that. If you asked them to perform behaviors that would lead them to be better at being mothers and wives, they wouldn’t do THAT. But they would have sex with you. So, they won’t stop drinking, smoking, spending money, running up student loans, traveling to far off countries, etc.

The same woman who will go to bed with you for fun won’t adjust her pursuit of pleasure ONE IOTA in order to develop the morality, spirituality, wealth, skills, personality, etc. necessary to be a wife and mother. And I am including Christian women in this list. I know TWO Christian women who lost their virginity to guys on on drugs, or guys who later turned out to be gay, etc. There just isn’t any kind of seriousness about marriage. They want it some day, but they aren’t willing to get serious about it, and that’s why the divorce rate is so high – they marry the wrong guys, and they aren’t suited to be content with married life and motherhood, even it they get it. There is no path to a stable marriage for a woman who values fun and thrills so highly that she doesn’t appreciate a good (moral, spiritual, provider, protector) man’s leadership.

I guess I don’t think of Roosh as an alpha male. I cringe when I see Rollo call some guy a beta male (like he isn’t). I don’t know. Sometimes I think women would do anything for a top male – this is why even decent Christian wives won’t submit, etc.

I don’t know what to think of Roosh, Rollo etc. I am suspicious of people who seem to make their living off this sort of thing. That said, there are a lot of unproven extrapolations in the manosphere but there is some solid science behind the basics – I have read it.

I have been thinking about Rollo’s writings on male vs female love. I don’t know what to make of it.

I don’t think that what many women regard as a “top male” really is a top male, if the criteria is long-term married love and a devoted father. That’s the whole problem, isn’t it? Many women are choosing men who are attractive in the moment, and trying to turn them into stable husbands and fathers after the fact. They’d have better luck trying to domesticate a crocodile, but can’t seem to control their own desires.

I think I chose “top male” because I never liked “alpha male” which to me suggests social dominance like you see in dogs/wolves. That said, I think the idea is that women are sexually attracted to tall, muscular men (although modern men consistenty overestimate how muscular) with the classic wide, square jaw, low FA (fluctuating asymmetry- an indicator of genetic quality) i.e. handsome and yes, a socially dominant personality. This is (I think) alpha as the manosphere tries to use it. “Bad boy” suggests social dominance as does confidence, charm.

The beta is defined as loyal, agreeable, hardworking and responsible. This does not turn women on. They are wired to try to optimize on both – a dual strategy. There is biological evidence of adaptation to a dual mating strategy (see Glenn Wilson, Martie Haselton, etc.).

All that said, I agree with your assessment – there has to be a culture where this is explained early on – “you can’t have it all.”

Yes. My best female friend Murdina says I’m an alpha male. Why? Because I don’t let my desire for sex with a woman cause me to give her leadership of the relationship. Getting things going in the direction I want, whether it’s mentoring or romantic, is more important to me. I feel disrespected if my leadership (based on demonstrated achievements) is not respected. And that cannot be overridden by skin or the offer of sex.

Modern terms seem to have reduced sex to being absent and devoid of feeling. Having an actual union of man and woman physically and as God designed is only physically occurring but there is no emotional and spiritual connection.

I don’t believe men are ultimately that shallow forever. A proper man wants a woman who has value outside of the bedroom, a woman he wants to spend time with his family and that can meet his friends. It isn’t just an act performed in secret where others don’t know devoid of meaning.

men who are getting a lot of attention because of their looks are probably the least likely to be faithful, much less commit.

I married a guy who is objectively handsome, and women do notice him because of his looks even though he puts very little money or effort into them. I put far more money and attention into my appearance and he still looks better.

Women who I don’t believe would EVER IN A MILLION YEARS make an attempt to steal my husband have told me that I have a very handsome husband. Even now, at 46 years old. And he’s been faithful to me for 25 years.

I don’t think attractiveness necessarily equals a tendency towards infidelity. No one has anything at all to do with whatever natural beauty they were born with or lack thereof. Character is a matter of the heart.

One thing I agree about is purposefully seeking out men solely on the basis of looks, muscles, and even money is a very bad idea. In my experience, women tend to overlook a man’s lack of ambition and if he is good looking and rugged enough. They usually think that they can work it out, only to find later that they can’t live with it.

We already knew that women are unhappy with the dating scene today. And now we know that even the men who are “succeeding” are unhappy with it too, in the long term. The Sexual Revolution has messed up love and commitment for everyone.

A fitting end to your post, and full of truth. The problem is that to fully acknowledge that this isn’t workable is to possibly limit one’s own choices, and no one wants to do that today. We’re addicted to choice, and not just when it comes to sexual matters.

I for one would love to see fewer options to choose from in several areas of life.

I don’t imagine the “looks” genes and the “cheating” genes necessarily come in a package but I suspect the issue is that men with the top looks have greater temptation/opportunities to cheat. I have known some tall handsome men at work here who are nice, chaste guys (surprise! They happen to be serious Christians).

Yes, Bruce. Very true. Devout Christian men -and women- come in all kinds of physical packages. It’s also worth noting (as it seems we in this sphere commonly forget) that Christianity is a faith of conversion, not birth. And so it is possible for a person to walk in a chaste, righteous life as a believer, even though they may have become a believer as an adult.

As a young woman myself, tattoos on men are generally a red flag. The vast majority of tattoos I see on men my age and older are, in my opinion, silly and cries for attention. I don’t get it, and the majority of people these days seem to have them.

I see a bunch of effeminate 20 something guys getting them – it seems they do this to make themselves look manly. They tat up their arms and grow a bushy beard but they can’t do a decent set of pushups – it’s a fake form of masculinity for them.

Word. My best female friend says that men are most masculine when they don’t allow a woman to distract them from leading theough the use of skin or sex. Like if a woman is smoking or spending too much, ans the man tries to get her to redirect to more productive behaviors, and she tries to get him to quit leading her by offering sex, and he refuses to be distracted, that’s real masculinity.

I just don’t believe this. I don’t. As a man who has always been on the other side of the looks, status, IQ, and bad genetics on just about everything, not speaking Greek or Hebrew, not a leader, not really anything……..all I can say is “cry me a river” that the poor alpha / top / gamed n framed types we have to now feel sorrow for, or help them, or “understand” them. Gee, they got all this sex, endearment, attention, and we just assumed to be smart, intelligent, holy or better because of this gift and combination of genetics, and know the right people at the right time………poor guys (sarc). If they are such top men, my response to them is what they have told me all my life: Just get confidence, go the gym, looks don’t matter to women, be alpha, be a leader and you will get a great woman”

Then they will tell you in the same breath that AWALT, and the “n count” always creeps in and all these other variables……….and how they just cannot imagine a “young man getting married today”

This is just again a diverter. None of these men if they were or became “born again” would regret their past….in fact plenty of christian men defend it with the sly “well, I wouldn’t be the man I am today if I didn’t do that and meet my perfect / holy / hot / amazing / gifted / talented / wife”

None of these men are killing themselves. None of these men are suffering. These men are just cornering and steering the conversation to somehow blame this on femimism while they reaped the benefits of NSA sex. They got the spoils, built a fence around it and then have told the rest of us “oh, it’s not that great”